"So Apple got yet another patent granted today, and now there's yet another media firestorm over whether it means Cupertino will be able to sue every other phone manufacturer out of business, or at least out of the business of making multitouch devices. And, as usual, most of the hysteria is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of what the patent claims actually say, and what behaviors they actually cover in iOS. I don't know why we keep repeating this sad cycle, but I do know that it’s always, always better for us to read the claims and try to figure them out for ourselves - and in this case,they're actually pretty narrow."

A careful reading of a patent is about as useful as a careful reading of the US Constitution. The validity and interpretation of a patent (and the Constitution for that matter) depends entirely upon controlling court legal decisions and has little to do with the ordinary meanings of the terms used.

I don't know, the US constitution is generally less wordy than a patent and is pretty straightforward.

Granted it does need to be translated considering it uses language over 200 years old, but as long as you are familiar with Blackstone's work and the federalist papers the consitution is very straightforward. Sadly law schools in the US cover neither the constitution, nor blackstone nor the federalist papers, they just go straight into case law and precedence and ignore the reasoning behind the constitution itself.

Well, if experts disagree on the interpretation of the constitution and launch multiple lawsuits over different aspects of it. Then, despite your personal opinion of the straightforwardness of the document, then a careful reading of the constitution is exactly as useful as a careful reading of a patent.